Ohio Supreme Court, 1923

Elliott v. Hardins

Ohio Supreme Court · Decided May 8, 1923 · No. 17634 · Allen, Concu, Day, Jones, Marshall, Matthias, Syllabus, Wanamaker

1 Ohio Law. Abs. 404; 36 A.L.R. 1128; 107 Ohio St. 501; 140 N.E. 338; 1923 Ohio LEXIS 258

Cases that cite this one

51 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.

Tuite v. UNION PACIFIC STAGES (Or. 1955)
Hundemer v. Partin, Ca2007-01-006 (10-22-2007) (Ohio Ct. App. 2007)
Benlehr v. Shell Oil Co. (Ohio Ct. App. 1978)
Chester v. Evans (Ga. Ct. App. 1967)
Payne v. Kinder (W. Va. 1962)
Rounds, Admr. v. Phillips (Md. 1934)
Wilcox v. Wunderlich (Utah 1928)
M.M. v. M.F. (Ohio Ct. App. 2020)
Pfund v. Ciesielczyk (Ohio Ct. App. 1992)
Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. HUNTINGTON NAT. BK. (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991)
McCarty v. Lynn (Ohio Ct. App. 1990)
Tonti v. Paglia (Ohio 1961)
Myrick v. Alexander (Ga. Ct. App. 1960)
Mikel v. Aaker (Minn. 1959)
May v. James G. Pardee Co. (Ohio 1956)
Hartough v. Brint (Ohio Ct. App. 1955)
Ross v. Burgan (Ohio 1955)
Burks v. Green (Ga. Ct. App. 1952)
Blissenbach, a Minor v. Yanko (Ohio Ct. App. 1951)
Gulla v. Straus (Ohio 1950)
Cunningham v. Bell (Ohio 1948)
Sours v. Sours (Tuscarawas County Court of Common Pleas 1946)
Krausnick v. Haegg Roofing Co. (Iowa 1945)
Wery v. Seff (Ohio 1940)
Bensman v. Reed (Ill. App. Ct. 1939)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

MARSHALL, C. J.:

1. While an automobile is not a dangerous instri ment per se, it may become such if operated by or who is unskilled in its use; and, where the owner ei trusts such a machine to an inexperienced or incon petent person, liability for damages may arise.

2. Where a father entrusts his automobile to fa-son, a youth of fourteen years, unaccustomed to i1 use, for purposes wholly apart from any business c enterprise of the father, the question of competenc is one for the jury under proper instructions.

3. In such case the liability of the owner woul not rest upon ownership or agency, but upon the con bined negligence of the owner and driver — negligent of the father in entrusting the machine to an incon petent driver, and negligence of the son in its operi tion.

Judgment affirmed.

Wanamaker, Jones, Day and Allen, JJ., concu: Matthias, J., concurs in the syllabus but' not in th judgment.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.